R v Gee (No 2) - [2016] QSC 45

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gee (No 2) [2016] QSC 45

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
v
BRENDEN RICKEY GEE

FILE NO/S:

SC No 286 of 2015

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Trial

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 February 2016

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

Ruling that jury be directed in accordance with these reasons.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – OTHER MATTERS – FORM OF VERDICT – where the defendant is charged with two separate counts of attempted murder – where each act relied upon for the corresponding count of attempted murder may have occurred at the same time – whether it is appropriate for the defendant to be convicted of two counts of attempted murder

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – OTHER MATTERS – FORM OF DIRECTION TO THE JURY - – where the defendant is charged with two separate counts of attempted murder – where each act relied upon for the corresponding count of attempted murder may have occurred at the same time – whether it is open for the jury to deliver a verdict on both counts if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both acts occurred at the same time

Khouzame & Saliba (1999) 108 A Crim R 170.
R v Harris (1969) 1 WLR 745.
R v Morrow and Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309.
R v Ogawa [2009] QCA 201.
R v Redgard (1956) St. R. Qd 1.
R v Trifyllis [1998] QCA 416.
Rixon v Thompson (2009) 22 VR 323.
Slade (1982) 7 A Crim R 43.

COUNSEL:

David Meredith for the Crown
James Benjamin for the defendant

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Legal Aid for the defendant

HIS HONOUR: The defendant in this case faces, amongst other things, two charges of attempted murder. One relates to the apparent insertion of a coin in the mouth of his four-month old daughter late on the 13^th of August 2013. The second relates to the apparent administration of some drugs or medications found in the infant’s urine on the 14^th of August 2013. The primary case of the Prosecution is that the coin was inserted at about the time of an evening feed a bit before midnight on the night of the 13^th of August and the medications were given to the infant either in or with a bottle feed of formula which occurred at 6 am or perhaps 6.30 am on the morning of the 14^th of August.

The primary case about the timing of the administration of the drugs is supported by medical evidence, including that of Dr Waugh and Professor Brown. However, another expert called by the Prosecution, Dr Hughes, expressed the view that at least one of the drugs was probably administered to the child before midnight on the 13^th of August and her preferred view seemed to be that the other drug…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Gee (No 2)

Details

AGLC: R v Gee (No 2) [2016] QSC 45
Case: [2016] QSC 45
Decision Date: 24 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gee (No 2), the defendant faced two counts of attempted murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on whether the defendant could be convicted of two separate counts of attempted murder if both acts alleged to constitute the attempts may have occurred simultaneously. The legal issues were to determine if the jury should be directed in a way that allows for a conviction on both counts if they find the acts occurred at the same time, and whether it is appropriate for the defendant to be convicted of two counts of attempted murder in such circumstances.

The court considered the principles of criminal liability and the nature of attempted crimes. It was noted that an attempt to commit an offence is complete once a person does an act that is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence, and the act must be done with the specific intention to commit the offence. The court examined the possibility that two acts of attempting to commit murder could occur simultaneously, and whether each act could independently fulfil the criteria for an attempted murder. The court concluded that if the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both acts occurred at the same time, it is open for the jury to deliver a verdict on both counts.

The reasoning of the court was that the jury should be directed to consider whether both acts occurred simultaneously and whether each act independently satisfies the criteria for an attempted murder. The court held that it is not necessary for the jury to determine which act occurred first, but rather that they must be satisfied that both acts were performed with the requisite intent and were not merely preparatory. The court provided detailed instructions on how the jury should approach the issue of concurrent acts in their deliberations.

The final orders of the court were that the jury should be directed in accordance with the reasons provided, allowing them to convict the defendant of two counts of attempted murder if they find that both acts occurred at the same time and meet the criteria for separate attempts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Ruling that jury be directed in accordance with these reasons.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Gee (No 2) [2016] QSC 45
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v BRENDEN RICKEY GEE
FILE NO/S:	SC No 286 of 2015
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 February 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 February 2016
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J
ORDER:	Ruling that jury be directed in accordance with these reasons.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – VERDICT – OTHER MATTERS – FORM OF VERDICT – where the defendant is charged with two separate counts of attempted murder – where each act relied upon for the corresponding count of attempted murder may have occurred at the same time – whether it is appropriate for the defendant to be convicted of two counts of attempted murder CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – JURIES – OTHER MATTERS – FORM OF DIRECTION TO THE JURY - – where the defendant is charged with two separate counts of attempted murder – where each act relied upon for the corresponding count of attempted murder may have occurred at the same time – whether it is open for the jury to deliver a verdict on both counts if they are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that both acts occurred at the same time Khouzame & Saliba (1999) 108 A Crim R 170. R v Harris (1969) 1 WLR 745. R v Morrow and Flynn [1991] 2 Qd R 309. R v Ogawa [2009] QCA 201. R v Redgard (1956) St. R. Qd 1. R v Trifyllis [1998] QCA 416. Rixon v Thompson (2009) 22 VR 323. Slade (1982) 7 A Crim R 43.
COUNSEL:	David Meredith for the Crown James Benjamin for the defendant
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown Legal Aid for the defendant